The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a digital privacy rights case this week centering on the right of the federal government to gather data of individuals from cell phone companies without probable cause warrants. The government argues that if a person’s information voluntarily channels through a third party such as a phone company, there is no right to privacy. Rights advocates say that in the wireless era and the proliferation of cell phones, the government would have unrestricted ability to watch its citizens. That could hamper journalists in protecting sources and citizens in their right to free speech and association. (Common Dreams, November 29, 2017, by Julia Conley)
In an amicus brief, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argued that current practice harms a free press. “[It is] too easy for the government to track a person’s every move through their cellphone, which is especially worrisome if the location records in question belong to a journalist. This endangers journalists’ ability to gather information and keep the public informed without the risk of being easily and routinely surveilled.”
First Amendment lawyers Jameel Jaffer and Alexander Abdo, The Guardian, November 27, 2017, worry about the dire effect unrestricted surveillance could have on the First Amendment. They say a government analyst can easily learn form cell phone data about a person attended a political meeting or met with a demonstrator or a lawyer and also discover the person’s associates in these activities.
The government’s argument that citizens with cell phones voluntarily relinquish their privacy wears thin in an era when owning a cell phone is essential to getting and holding a job. It is no longer a voluntary act. (Wired, November 29, 2017, by Andrew D. Selbst and Julia Ticona)